No.. drop off after the first month is only normal in overblown shallow WoW clones that fail to live up to the hype their multi million dollar ad campaigns generated.

Actually sandbox games generally have a quicker decline, and tank more often.   About the only game to break that trend has been EVE Online, and that wasn't a gradual growth either.  It declined and settled at around 35k active subsciptions, then after a few years of improvements attracted more players, raising to around 300k.   Which is still way less than most themepark MMOs have.

Yes, its a shame sandbox games aren't more successful.

Originally posted by grapevine

No.. drop off after the first month is only normal in overblown shallow WoW clones that fail to live up to the hype their multi million dollar ad campaigns generated.

 

Actually sandbox games generally have a quicker decline, and tank more often.   About the only game to break that trend has been EVE Online, and that wasn't a gradual growth either.  For years (I belive) it decllinded to (and sat at) around 35k active subsciptions, then after a few years shot up to around 300k.   Which is still way less than most themepark MMOs have.

 

Yes, its a shame sandbox games aren't more successful.

DAoC, EQ, UO, AC, SWG, EQ2 all grew over time to EXCEED their initial box sales and gain MORE subscribers.

No big budget WoW clone has done that since. Hell, most themepark MMOs would crap themselves if they had as big a subscription base as Eve. There's a reason Funcom almost went bankrupt after AoC.

Originally posted by Garvon3

Originally posted by grapevine

No.. drop off after the first month is only normal in overblown shallow WoW clones that fail to live up to the hype their multi million dollar ad campaigns generated.

 

Actually sandbox games generally have a quicker decline, and tank more often.   About the only game to break that trend has been EVE Online, and that wasn't a gradual growth either.  For years (I belive) it decllinded to (and sat at) around 35k active subsciptions, then after a few years shot up to around 300k.   Which is still way less than most themepark MMOs have.

 

Yes, its a shame sandbox games aren't more successful.

DAoC, EQ, UO, AC, SWG, EQ2 all grew over time to EXCEED their initial box sales and gain MORE subscribers.

No big budget WoW clone has done that since. Hell, most themepark MMOs would crap themselves if they had as big a subscription base as Eve. There's a reason Funcom almost went bankrupt after AoC.

DAoC, EQ are 2nd generation MMOs. AC & UO first generation.   Themepark MMOs didn't exist  Also the market was a lot smaller (and I mean A LOT, regarding both the number of games and players).

SWG peaked at something like 300k within the first two months, then fell and kept falling until the CU.   Upon which it bounced back for a few months, then was decimated by the NGE.     So it certainly did not see a growth, other for when people came back to check out the CU.  Apart from that its trend was always a decreasing one.

EQ2 declined very quickly, with the trend continuing as WoW launched the following month.  EQ2 is also a themepark MMO.

By pure logical all MMOs have exceed their initial box sales, otherwise they'd never receive new players.  New players in many case are simply representing turnover, not a growth.

Originally posted by grapevine

No.. drop off after the first month is only normal in overblown shallow WoW clones that fail to live up to the hype their multi million dollar ad campaigns generated.

 

Actually sandbox games generally have a quicker decline, and tank more often.   About the only game to break that trend has been EVE Online, and that wasn't a gradual growth either.  For years (I belive) it decllinded to (and sat at) around 35k active subsciptions, then after a few years shot up to around 300k.   Which is still way less than most themepark MMOs have.

 

Yes, its a shame sandbox games aren't more successful.

That's what I never understand when people throw EVE out as a great MMO and the "way to do things" etc. Granted...I see EVE's appeal....the graphics have become gorgeous..full economy...political corruption and maneuvering. True double dealing and loss...as well a true comraderie and teamwork. All more or less in the same malleable universe. I see what it does right.  But its taken almost 10 yrs to this point.... Why the patience for this game but others aren't allowed the same?. . The nature of mmos require constant change and tweaking ..I don't care if it cost 200,000 or 200 million dollars to create. Its always a learning and evolving process. How much money do you think has been invested into EVE from the beginning..from starting investment to money thrown back into making the game what it is today?

Originally posted by BarCrow

Originally posted by grapevine

No.. drop off after the first month is only normal in overblown shallow WoW clones that fail to live up to the hype their multi million dollar ad campaigns generated.

 

Actually sandbox games generally have a quicker decline, and tank more often.   About the only game to break that trend has been EVE Online, and that wasn't a gradual growth either.  For years (I belive) it decllinded to (and sat at) around 35k active subsciptions, then after a few years shot up to around 300k.   Which is still way less than most themepark MMOs have.

 

Yes, its a shame sandbox games aren't more successful.

That's what I never understand when people throw EVE out as a great MMO and the "way to do things" etc. Granted...I see EVE's appeal....the graphics have become gorgeous..full economy...political corruption and maneuvering. True double dealing and loss...as well a true comraderie and teamwork. All more or less in the same malleable universe. I see what it does right.  But its taken almost 10 yrs to this point.... Why the patience for this game but others aren't allowed the same?. .

Because even at launch Eve was an interesting game doing something new, so it had potential to grow. WoW clones, do not, because by definition, they are clones. Reactionary at best. They'll never break new ground and grab up new players. All they can ever do is become closer and closer to WoW and more polished, in which case well.. people already have WoW.

And to the person saying themeparks didn't exist... what you mean is that WoW clones didn't exist, thus proving my point that the WoW clone model is the only one that has tripped after launched and steadily fallen.

The reason those old MMOs grew over time is because they had new ideas and good game design. Contrary to what you'd choose to believe, competition was heavy back then, and there were a lot of MMOs, you just only hear about 4-5 because those were the most successful ones. Good MMOs grow. Bad WoW clones rely on initial box sales and marketing campaigns, then ultimately fade away into nothingness. It happened to LotRO, to AoC, to WAR, and Rift.

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Well, every game gets a large spike of subs its first month. Those are the first-triers. The drop-off after the first month is also normal. Then the numbers stabilize, again totally normal.

The black lines are just there to manupulate the viewer into thinking people are fleeing a sinking ship.

The black line may be there to show that people could be "fleeing a sinking ship" but it is not manipulating you at all, it is simply showing a slope.

The iffy part comes because you have a (nearly) perfect downward slope, that has been "split" by some kind of external force.  The OP stated that possibly this force is simply that the data is being tampered with... that the scale of the graph itself was altered.  I doubt anyone will be able to disprove this, and people really have yet to give any other good explanation as to why this happened.

If you try to blame it on the illum patch that was a horrible failure bringing people back, you woudn't see the same slope right after the break, you'd see a steeper slope that would slowly level out back to the original.

Honestly I find your arguments very lacking, you're simply attacking parts of the graph, saying it is somehow altering the data by drawing a line over it.  I'd say the best way to call this into question would be to find out if the data set itself is legit.  The graph is pretty meaningless if its based on faulty numbers.

EDIT: EVE was actually a pretty amazing game right from the get-go.  I was in closed beta and found it to be very compelling before they added all the new stuff we see now (hell, we only really had 4 ship types back then).  That game was setting records long before it really hit its stride, back when we were all logging in on sunday for the first ever 10k concurrent users, where we now see 30k+ outside of peak times.  I may no longer play the game because I don't enjoy it, but I still see that is an amazing feat, and one of the best made games around.  It'll never be a mainstream mega-millions game, but it really doesn't need to be, it is already a success both for those making a living from it, and those who enjoy paying for it.

Originally posted by Majinash

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Well, every game gets a large spike of subs its first month. Those are the first-triers. The drop-off after the first month is also normal. Then the numbers stabilize, again totally normal.

The black lines are just there to manupulate the viewer into thinking people are fleeing a sinking ship.

Honestly I find your arguments very lacking, you're simply attacking parts of the graph, saying it is somehow altering the data by drawing a line over it.  I'd say the best way to call this into question would be to find out if the data set itself is legit.  The graph is pretty meaningless if its based on faulty numbers.

 

I'm not disputing the graph itself, just saying that the only purpose of the black line is to misdirect the viewer's focus and attempt to get them to see the data in a misleading way.

Really, why else would you need a graph on top of a graph?

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

I'm not disputing the graph itself, just saying that the only purpose of the black line is to misdirect the viewer's focus and attempt to get them to see the data in a misleading way.

Really, why else would you need a graph on top of a graph?

Drawing lines on graphs is how you show trends, its not a graph on a graph.  You really don't seem to know what you're talking about, you can't "mislead" with a graph without cheating, and showing a trend is not cheating.  If you mislable, change the scale, or omit data you can mislead, but if the graph itself is legit, any trend you can draw from it is valid.  You're grasping at straws here trying to discredit the graph with no evidence.

The line is there to show the trend, and how the trend doesn't look right.  It isn't misdirecting anything.

Now if you can actually show that somehow the graph itself is flawed, you'd be correct in saying it is misleading.  That is very much possible here as I really have no idea where the numbers came from or really anything about the validity of the graph.  But simply saying "They drew a line to trick us!" is downright silly.

Originally posted by tom_gore

It's not rocket science. The game is losing subs all the time. They do the best to hide it until they have to take action and start merging the servers.

Happens to all new MMOs a couple months after launch. SWTOR is not special in that sense.

In fact, SWTOR is not special as an MMORPG in any sense.

 

I agree but I still believe if they got off their collective arses and fix the problems and start working towards a better tomorrow they have the potential to be a great themepark MMO.  It has tons of potential but its sad that half their playerbase will have quit before they can fix it.

Originally posted by Garvon3

Originally posted by BarCrow

Originally posted by grapevine

No.. drop off after the first month is only normal in overblown shallow WoW clones that fail to live up to the hype their multi million dollar ad campaigns generated.

 

Actually sandbox games generally have a quicker decline, and tank more often.   About the only game to break that trend has been EVE Online, and that wasn't a gradual growth either.  For years (I belive) it decllinded to (and sat at) around 35k active subsciptions, then after a few years shot up to around 300k.   Which is still way less than most themepark MMOs have.

 

Yes, its a shame sandbox games aren't more successful.

That's what I never understand when people throw EVE out as a great MMO and the "way to do things" etc. Granted...I see EVE's appeal....the graphics have become gorgeous..full economy...political corruption and maneuvering. True double dealing and loss...as well a true comraderie and teamwork. All more or less in the same malleable universe. I see what it does right.  But its taken almost 10 yrs to this point.... Why the patience for this game but others aren't allowed the same?. .

Because even at launch Eve was an interesting game doing something new, so it had potential to grow. WoW clones, do not, because by definition, they are clones. Reactionary at best. They'll never break new ground and grab up new players. All they can ever do is become closer and closer to WoW and more polished, in which case well.. people already have WoW.

And to the person saying themeparks didn't exist... what you mean is that WoW clones didn't exist, thus proving my point that the WoW clone model is the only one that has tripped after launched and steadily fallen.

The reason those old MMOs grew over time is because they had new ideas and good game design. Contrary to what you'd choose to believe, competition was heavy back then, and there were a lot of MMOs, you just only hear about 4-5 because those were the most successful ones. Good MMOs grow. Bad WoW clones rely on initial box sales and marketing campaigns, then ultimately fade away into nothingness. It happened to LotRO, to AoC, to WAR, and Rift.

    All good points. I'd have to disagree on a few things. Particularly the last games mentioned...aside from WAR which i know little about...I'd say the others probably have just as many subscribers as EVE. Any MMO with  sustainable populations and still makes a profit...pricing structure changes or not...I do not see as a failure.  Also..LOTRO always had a decent pop...probably comparable to EVE ...even before  F2P. Am I 100% sure...no...but I don't think I'm far off mark. They just saw what it did for DDO and figured...more money is always good ..imo. Unlike AOC which greatly needed the revamp. RIFT..I enjoy but definitely noticed the decline on many servers and even transferred my characters to a different ..busier server. I'm sure they all hoped for WOW numbers...which doesnt make them idiots..just ambitious. (and perhaps unrealistic)

You're definitely correct...many start (and end) as WOW clones but I don't think that always need be the case. I guess I just have hope that some will make positive changes. Actual changes. lol. I'm lucky with SWTOR. I like it for what it is..hope it will make advances in the future. Since I don't PVP that much or ever raid..I have rarely run into many of the issues that bug others. My fps is great in busy areas..the game looks good to me and when I decide to  PvP I have a blast. Is it innovative .. not really..but If any company puts out the same ol' same ol'..i at least hope it looks and runs as well as SWTOR (and RIFT) has for me. If they cant change or add any further innovations..i still hold hope that we will get the full package one day.  Perhaps in vain. Fortunately I am not a one MMO person. I like to jump around according to mood with some XBOX360 multiplayer thrown in.

I think the lows are a more telling sign than the peaks.

Also, if you want to show or prove anything, it'd be better to 'line' (lol) out both in comparison. 

http://imgur.com/a/PMo56

Lastly, burden of proof...  I only see conjecture to them changing the rating.

Originally posted by Cavod

 

Lastly, burden of proof...  I only see conjecture to them changing the rating.

Offer an alternative, this is statistics, not a court of law.

Originally posted by Majinash

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

I'm not disputing the graph itself, just saying that the only purpose of the black line is to misdirect the viewer's focus and attempt to get them to see the data in a misleading way.

Really, why else would you need a graph on top of a graph?

Drawing lines on graphs is how you show trends, its not a graph on a graph.  You really don't seem to know what you're talking about, you can't "mislead" with a graph without cheating, and showing a trend is not cheating.  If you mislable, change the scale, or omit data you can mislead, but if the graph itself is legit, any trend you can draw from it is valid.  You're grasping at straws here trying to discredit the graph with no evidence.

 

The line is there to show the trend, and how the trend doesn't look right.  It isn't misdirecting anything.

 

Now if you can actually show that somehow the graph itself is flawed, you'd be correct in saying it is misleading.  That is very much possible here as I really have no idea where the numbers came from or really anything about the validity of the graph.  But simply saying "They drew a line to trick us!" is downright silly.

No, you just dont seem to understand what I'm talking about. Its very easy to use a graph to mislead. It happens all the time. If I were at home right now I could take the graph and edit the black line to point out a completely different "trend" without manipulating the data at all, but its not that big of a deal, and there's no use going back and forth about it like this.

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

No, you just dont seem to understand what I'm talking about. Its very easy to use a graph to mislead. It happens all the time. If I were at home right now I could take the graph and edit the black line to point out a completely different "trend" without manipulating the data at all, but its not that big of a deal, and there's no use going back and forth about it like this.

Yes, you could draw a black line pointing up, but it wouldn't match the graph and would be meaningless.  This line matches data points (peak hours every week) and shows them declining at a rate that can be expressed as the slope of the line.  Any attempt to refute that is stubborn ignorance.

It's ok to admit you don't understand how graphs work, statistics is a shifty field to begin with.  But simply re-stating "the graph is misleading" over and over is... stupid.

Yes it is very easy to make a graph that can mislead, the LINE is not a graph, it is derived from the graph.  But you have yet to point out what is wrong with the graph itself, so all you've done is yell and moan at some data points that seem to offend you somehow.

Feel better now? :P

Now that's mis-leading.

Originally posted by dubyahite
So basically what this proves (if true) is that this sites measurement methods are deeply flawed.

It further reinforces the fact that we don't know how many people standard or heavy or light means.

They attach a number of players to the server status, if the server capacity changes then this numbers are now invalid, yet the graph doesn't change the population numbers.


If anything, this post goes to show how deeply flawed this sites metrics are.


We can all stop linking their data now, because it doesn't mean squat.

But the trend remains the same no matter what. You just ignore the numbers.

Originally posted by Metentso

Look at this image:

 

See how the two lines show a similar rate of descent. But there is a sudden rise in end january / start february.

Did they change the rating? So for instance a "Light" server would be a "Standard" server, and so on?

Don't have data of that period on xFire to compare with. Would be interesting if anyone had.

Looks like someone got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. 

You can't fool us MMORPG.COM "haters" Bioware!

Originally posted by jacklo

Feel better now? :P

Now that's mis-leading.

Kinda, it still gives correct information, just in a less than intuitive way.  If you had to express that trend you would say that peak populations increase as you go back in time.  Weird way of putting it, but still legit.  I get what you're saying, but from a technical standpoint, still acceptable.